According to Sandy Alderson, Collins was extended due to the way the team played in the last 100 games of 2013:

“Terry has done an outstanding job for us. We’re not happy with the win-loss record we had this year, particularly unhappy with the home record. On the other hand, we had a winning record on the road. And, if you look at the last 100 games of the season we played .500 baseball.”

Um?

Alderson also said:

“In many ways, Terry had an outstanding year. The team never quit, continued to play hard, continued to play with the resources it had at hand and finished as well as we could have expected.”

So, Sandy and the Mets are not happy with the team’s won-loss record, but they are happy with a winning record on the road. And they’re happy going 50-50 over the last 100 games, because they played hard. Sandy is also happy with Collins, and finished as well as could be expected, because he had limited resources. In other words, because Alderson gave him a rotten team? Is that what he’s saying? In other words, Alderson is taking the blame for the losing season, is what I gather.

Collins said this about his “resources”:

I don’t have control over the names in the clubhouse, my job is to get my guys better. We have to play better, there is no other way to put it. We have to be better. … I don’t ever question the people that are put in the clubhouse. I know exactly how Sandy, J.P. and Paul go about their jobs and who they’re after. We talk all the time about it. That’s not my territory. My territory is to try and make sure Juan Lagares got better, that Travis d’Arnaud got better. Ultimately, there’s gonna be 50 guys that walk on that field and I don’t care who they are.

I’m not sure what to make of these comments. Maybe you can help.

And, not for nuthin’, but remember the discussion we had about round numbers, such as Dillon Gee‘s 200 innings? It’s interesting that Alderson used the last 100 games, instead of, say, the last 110 games — during which the Mets were 52-58, or, 6 games below .500. Similarly, why not choose the last 90 games, when their record was 44-46, or the last 70 games, when they went 33-37? Or the last 50, when they went 22-28? It’s remarkable, isn’t it, that the number 100 was picked out of the sky, and it just so happened to work out perfectly?

In three years with Terry Collins as manager, the Mets record is 225-261. Hey, that’s better than their record in their first three years under Joe Torre, so there you go.

Joe Janish began MetsToday in 2005 to provide the unique perspective of a high-level player and coach -- he earned NCAA D-1 All-American honors as a catcher and coached several players who went on to play pro ball. As a result his posts often include mechanical evaluations, scout-like analysis, and opinions that go beyond the numbers. Follow Joe's baseball tips on Twitter at @onbaseball and at the On Baseball Google Plus page.

Just looking at it on the surface, I’m a guy who wouldn’t have brought him back at all — let alone guaranteed 2-years (if I definitively had to, I’d have gone 1 + the option).

It’s interesting that the Mets guaranteed him 2-years, AND hold an option on him for 2016.

Obviously, it doesn’t matter very much with Alderson – who’s at the helm – so long as they do his bidding. From that perspective, he must be doing an overly great job of what Alderson wants to see from his manager.

I’ve had Met fans tell me that bringing him back on a 1-year deal + an option would “be a slap in the face” to Collins………

::chuckles::

Do we honestly feel that anything could be considered a “slap in the face” to Collins at this point?

From my perspective, he’s been lucky to have the job this long. Having endured laughably bad rosters, Metspeak in the media, etc. — I can understand giving him a tip of the cap, and saying: “Thanks, Terry,” as you throw him a bone……but from a Met perspective?

This is what they almost always do: go a year overboard, and then have you wondering whether or not they’ll cut ties with someone, since they’re already on the payroll for the season to follow.

(Just my opinion of the situation as a whole.)

Presuming this roster does upgrade at any point during the winter, Collins’ managerial moves should be scrutinized that much further next year and beyond. He’s gotten a tremendous pass under the built-in excuse of “oh, he’s got a terrible roster” – meanwhile, many of the moves had little to nothing to do with his players, and strictly terrible match-ups he created on his own.

I still think back to that game vs. Colorado, the day they basically had half their starting lineup on the bench. Collins calling for Rice, to set-up – what he thought would be – a lefty-lefty match-up……..only to have Tulowitzki announced as a PH, the second Rice came in……..very scary stuff to me.

At that point, Rice couldn’t go anywhere near the strikezone – walking him on 4 pitches. Collins then needed to go out and take him out of the game.

Stuff like that can’t happen going forward, even if it winds up “working out” by accident.

I’ve just found it amusing that nearly every questionable move he’s ever made has been met with the almost reflex-excuse from Met fans of “he’s managing with a terrible roster!!”

…….ain’t always that cut and dry.

We’ll see what happens down the road, but to say that he “needed” a multi-year extension, or that you had to, “to it to see what he does with a better roster”?

We’ve already seen 3 seasons of his managerial prowess, and really – I’ve come away impressed exactly once by a move he made (the Atlanta game where he sent Parnell up to show bunt, then pinch hit for him within the same AB – after Valdespin stole 2B).

That’s about it for me, and I’ll be curious to see how he helps/hinders us as the expectations increase. As a fan of this organization, I now have to convince myself that “it doesn’t matter who’s managing” with Alderson pulling the strings.

I’ll never agree with that, unfortunately. Good luck, Terry.

DaveSchneckOctober 1, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Joe,
I am rather neutral on Collins. I think his stronger points are probably not visible to the fans since the occur in the clubhouse and with the media. His in-game management is so-so, let’s say middle of the pack. He has made some bonehead moves and some decent moves. I also think this is somewhat common even with the Torres and Larussas of the world, but I have yet to see a SABR stat that judges managers or track “unforced errors”. That would be interesting.

It is interesting that the cliche has always been “you can’t fire all the players, so you fire the manager”. Now, Alderson seems to be going against that, putting aside the win/loss records over the three years, and it seems that many want Collins’ head due to the three losing seasons. I never buy it when we select a range of games to make a point. The season is 162 games, and I bet even the Astros can find a range with respectable numbers, it means nothing. I will agree with Alderson in that the team did not quit on Collins, it just didn’t have enough good players. It doesn’t give Collins a pass on everything, but it is a factor. The fact that he is a “yesman” and “puppet” for Alderson, I agree. However, I would be shocked if any manager was “doing his own thing”. Some may present that image in public more than others, but generally in the workplace the worker does what the boss wants, and in the high stakes game of MLB, where most catchers don’t even call pitches, I can’t imaging any GM earning 7 figures allowing his manager to make any decisions independently outside of game decisions.

The reference to Torre at the end of your artlcle was very appropriate. He was a huge loser with the Mets and a HOF manager with the Yankees. What changed? He still burned out some of his bullpen arms and botched a few match-ups. Really only two things – he was older and wiser, learning from previous mistakes managing men, and he had better players. Oh, and did I mention that he had much much better players with the Yankees?

friendOctober 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm

In a nutshell, the bar has been set at .500 for such a very long time, that it is probably rusted stuck there.

DanBOctober 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm

Collins falls under the heading of (steady yourself Joe) “the least of our problems”. He is not as bad as Cowgill starting in right but not as good as Murphy at second. Just like a great lineup could compensate for Murphy at second, a great lineup could compensate for Collin’s in game management. However, it would of been nice to see the Mets aim higher for their first post season move of what is suppose to be this grand rebirth of the Mets.

AndyOctober 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm

I thought Alderson was referencing 100 games because that period starts from the Harvey/Wheeler double-header and the arrival of Eric Young Jr. Alderson was trying to take credit for a number of moves around that time that supposedly improved the team’s performance from dismal to mediocre.

NormEOctober 1, 2013 at 2:04 pm

I started to write something about TC and I stopped. It doesn’t really matter.
Right now I’d rather enjoy some good games in the playoffs.
Last night’s performance by Price and Longoria was a good beginning.
Time to put the Mets to bed until the WS is over.

HobieOctober 1, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Wally Backman would’ve had a .500 record even with the bad players. Collins is atrocious, and his talent fits right in with his roster.

crozierOctober 1, 2013 at 5:59 pm

Apologies, hobie, but it’s off-the-rails to suggest that Backman, or anyone, could transform a 74-88 team to 81-81 with such a dearth of talent, at least when you factor in the injuries. I don’t think Mike Trout could have made the Mets a .500 club.

Earlier this season I wondered what a Buck Showalter might have done. My conclusion, I think, is that he wouldn’t have made a significant difference in their record, but I do think I’d have respected him, and the team, much more than I did with Collins at the helm.

QuinnOctober 2, 2013 at 3:21 am

7 additional wins in a 162 game season is not unfathomable. Obviously all we can do is speculate but just imagine if Davis was removed earlier in the year, Tejada was replaced earlier and Lugares wasn’t buried at the end of the bench his first month with the mets. Also avoid the disaster of Cowgill and bring up Satin earlier. Like I said all we can do is speculate but the fact that Harvey got so many no decisions due to lack of run support maybe a change in personnel and to the lineup would have increased the win total by 7 games. Its all speculation but a better coach/management could possibly have procured a 500 team out of that roster.
Side note if they took care of business against the Marlins they also would have had a much better chance of going 500. I believe that falls on the coaches shoulders for letting his team play down to the one team they should have racked up wins against.

DaveSchneckOctober 1, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Joe J.,
Off topic, very interesting link I got from Mack’s Mets. More of your song and dance regarding throwing motion, inverted W, and as it specifically relates to Matt Harvey. If this analysis is correct, whether or not Harvey gets TJ, his ability to dominate is very questionable given the edge provided using mechanics that are not sustainable.

I have no use for Chris O’Leary. He knows just enough to be dangerous.

I also know just enough to be dangerous, but am aware of the fact and am very judicious about what I say and do. He, on the other hand, positions himself as an expert.

DaveSchneckOctober 1, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Joe,
I don’t know O’Leary nor do I know pitching mechanics. I found the piece interesting in that is had video of Harvey. It is quite amazing to me that among the epidemic of TJs are guys like Harvey and Strasburg. These guys are top pedigree, dominant, young, strong, and have had their arms overseen/babied for years. Why are they dropping? Are they just looking for that extra edge and pushing their bodies just beyond what they are capable of? Should teams be hedging their bets and investing more time/energy in the Gorskis of the world? Should a guy that throws 95 be convinced he is better off focusing on command and release point and throwing 93 instead? Somewhere out there is an answer or answers.

The problem of pitching injuries is complex. The biggest issue, by far, is bad mechanics — and those bad mechanics are taught at every level by numnuts who have zero knowledge of how the body works but are listened to because they pitched pro ball.

The second issue is the nonsense of long toss. Once a pitcher starts throwing beyond 120 feet, he’s putting tremendous stress on the elbow.

The third issue is improper conditioning. The majority of pitchers, at every level including MLB, are on throwing programs that are made up by the whims and experience of pitching coaches instead of based on science. Pitchers aren’t properly prepared for their role, and/or aren’t following logical recovery programs between outings. Further exacerbating the issue are pitchers who spend a boatload of time in the weight room building up their large muscles, but no time in the rice bucket or doing other exercises to strengthen the smaller muscles in their forearm and hand.

The fourth issue is improperly throwing, and/or throwing too many, pitches that amplify the danger of what are already bad mechanics, such as sliders and curves. The safest pitch a pitcher can throw is a change-up, yet not many pitchers throw it regularly. It seems that every single pitcher in baseball throws a slider though.

The fifth issue might be either too much throwing or not enough throwing — though it’s hard to say because so many pitchers have flawed mechanics.

It’s really not a mystery why so many pitchers get injured. About 90% of it is rooted in the fact that the people teaching pitching know nothing at all about human kinetics. Why weren’t there so many injuries earlier in history? Part of it has to do with better mechanics, believe it or not. Watch any baseball videos that are black and white and you’ll see guys stepping back off the rubber and building momentum toward home plate with their entire bodies. That’s one detail. Part of it could be that pitchers didn’t throw as hard in the past — or at least, didn’t go 100% effort on every single pitch. Maybe that has something to do with it, I don’t know. They didn’t throw sliders as often, at least not until the 1960s, so maybe that’s part of it. There also was more emphasis placed on control as opposed to velocity, and as it turns out, clean mechanics always lead to great command, so maybe that was a factor in who made it to MLB.

DaveSchneckOctober 2, 2013 at 8:23 am

So, it’s numnuts’ fault that I never competed for the big leagues, that makes me feel better. Seriously, though, that is an excellent and thorough explanation. Thanks.

MFOctober 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm

I would like to see exactly what decisions Wally or any other manager would have made to win 8 more games. I am not sure how effective, winning management is measured. Hindsight is 20-20 and this can be speculated ad-nausea.

Believe what you want to believe about management. There is nothing, however, that you or anyone else can say, do, or present to make me believe that any other manager could have taken the 2000 Mets to the World Series. That was one of the least-talented World Series teams of all-time. An outfield of Timo Perez, Derek Bell, and Benny Agbayani, in the midst of the PEDs era, that gets to the World Series? Either Bobby V. was a genius that year or sold his soul to the Devil.

crozierOctober 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm

I don’t know, Joe. The 2000 team had many players performing at their peak to get them to the Wild Card. Look at the OPS of the starting lineup, and I think you’ll agree it’s pretty impressive. The team got on base and had enough players with power to make up for a mostly mediocre pitching staff. Once you get to the post-season, two good pitchers can carry you if you get some offense.

I wouldn’t call it great management; I’d call it luck, which tends to last one season at best (see also: 2012 Baltimore Orioles)

Well you can look at it different ways. Were those players playing at their peak just a stroke of luck or did it have something to do with Bobby V. putting his players in position to succeed and motivating them in a way they never were before?

I look at the lineup and I see a lot of daily variables, which made Valentine’s job more of a real job. Ordonez was out most of the year and the outfield was a constant shell game. Piazza and Alfonzo had great years offensively, and Agbayani the year of his life (in America, anyway), but otherwise, who was at their “peak?” Ventura hit .232 that year, Ordonez .188. Zeile was pretty good, I guess. Bell was on the downswing, Rickey was awful. Their team OPS seems pretty high today at .776, but in PEDs-fueled 2000, that was only .003 better than league average.

MFOctober 1, 2013 at 6:41 pm

I don’t know Joe. I can’t push back on this one. We are, after all, Mets fans. We Gotta Believe!

crozierOctober 1, 2013 at 5:47 pm

I’m not a Collins fan; I’ve said that about a thousand times. He says little of substance, and there have been too many instances where I found myself in the irritating position of thinking, “The Yankees would never do that.” The memory of him tearing up as he discussed pulling Reyes after his bunt-for-the-battling-title sums him up for me.

I like tough, smart, strategic managers like Davy Johnson, and Collins is oh-for-three in those categories. But Alderson is the strategy guy, for better or worse, and you can’t have two.

But how much of a difference could my style of manager truly make? I think very little. If Collins – or anyone – had fearsome 3/4/5 hitters and a good bullpen to go with a stellar rotation, I would expect his team to be competitive.

In sum, my reaction is emotional, therefore meaningless. Collins can win with talent, but I still won’t like him.

Maybe it’s my experience playing baseball and football for good, bad, and neutral coaches that influences my opinion — which is that yes, absolutely, the field leader can make a difference in a team’s season record (good and bad).

I also absolutely believe that sheer talent can win in spite of leadership, because I’ve experienced it at amateur levels. Is it really the same at MLB? Certainly, if one team is completely stacked, such as the Yankees of the late 90s / early 2000s. But in 2013, in the NL, there were few teams with more talent than everyone, and had it available for the majority of the season — the Braves, certainly, the Cardinals, and perhaps the Dodgers and Reds. There was one teams that had really awful personnel available: the Marlins. The other ten teams weren’t all that different depending on the time of year and who was available / injured / etc. I stated many times that the Mets had a AAA roster or lineup, but by the end of the year, I realized so did many other teams. Offense has disappeared everywhere in the NL, defense is by and large terrible, and though most pitching is mediocre, it’s better than the hitting.

At some point, you have to make a choice. If you agree that the Mets had a strong starting rotation, then you have to question whether Collins got the best out of it. If you believe the youngsters they brought up, combined with Eric Young, Jr., created a team that impressed you, you have to wonder if they’d have been even better with a different manager. If you think Lucas Duda and/or Ike Davis can one day be 30-HR beasts, you have to wonder why they weren’t under Collins and his coaching staff.

Bottom line is this: if you believe the Mets didn’t have enough talent to at least be a .500 club in 2013, and the manager is ineffectual / neutral, then you must also believe that most of the roster must be overhauled. And if that’s the case, 2014 is appearing to be another bleak year, because it’s highly unlikely the Mets will significantly overhaul the roster AND find replacements for the performances lost to Matt Harvey and Marlon Byrd.

On the other hand, you might believe that the Mets had some talented players who underachieved, such as Duda, Davis, Edgin, Murphy, Tejada, Nieuwenhuis, Lagares — go ahead, make your list of players you believe in — and wonder, why did they underachieve? Would they have upped their game or had a different approach under different leadership? Should Josh Satin, Andrew Brown, and/or Justin Turner have seen more playing time, or been used more effectively? Was it wise to play Murphy in 161 ballgames? Should some of the relievers been used as often as they were? Might Jordany Valdespin have been less of a nuisance and gotten more out of his raw talent under someone else?

And yet one more perspective: did the Mets do “as well as could be expected,” as Sandy Alderson stated? If so, then logic dictates that Collins was completely neutral and ineffectual. Therefore, you could argue that it would make sense to try and find someone who could lead the team to unexpected heights. But, I suppose that’s a useless argument if you believe it’s all about assembling robots who produce specific stats. In which case, why even bother extending Collins at $1M per year, when you can hire, say, Joe McEwing to do the same puppet job at less than half that cost?

IzzyOctober 1, 2013 at 5:57 pm

Fire Freddy and bring in the new Dodger ownership with a new GM and, like the Dodgers, the manager becomes irrelevant. But since that is fantasy, Alderson proclaims Collins a success story. Therefore Freddy should have fired the self proclaimed failure. Maybe with another year of dwindling attendance and SNY ratings.

chrisOctober 1, 2013 at 6:58 pm

I am more appalled that Warthen gets to stay on after the ongoing demolishin of arms he has overseen.

chrisOctober 1, 2013 at 6:59 pm

demolition* whoops!

TexasGusCCOctober 2, 2013 at 2:34 am

I keep asking myself:

We all see certain flaws, and if we see them, so does the front office. But, they allow them to continue in many instances (I.e. batting Davis cleanup when he is an automatic strikeout, playing Baxter so much that the front office sent him to Vegas for not getting down a bunt, LOL) for longer than many other organizations would. Why?

The easiest way to drum up winter sales is to change a manager and bring in some free agents and call it a new start. I’m sure they thought of this, and realize that the fan base will be skeptical if there aren’t changes and their attendance will dwindle more. So, what’s with the loyalty to Collins?

Pretty sure that Alderson will only stay on as GM after next year if he doesn’t get the commish job. So, as he has said he will leave if there aren’t payroll flexibilities, but we know he’s hoping to leave anyway, can we just expect him to be too concerned with the team’s win/loss record? After all, everyone and their mother knows Sandy came in to slash payroll and is more a finance guy than a baseball guy.

In a nutshell, I notice that they keep feeding us BS and the truth comes out when it can’t be denied any longer as to what their approach is. [They lied about their financial condition and their spending in 2011, in 2012, and in 2013.] So, as to any liars, you tend to stop believing anything they say. But what is the purpose of all this allowing the team to lose? Where is it going?

Like I said, they must see what we see, so, with your attendance falling every year, your team is as talented a lineup as the Twins or Astros, what are you planning to use to sell tickets next year? It just seems like they don’t care.

Dan42October 2, 2013 at 6:09 am

Caring would involve hope, but the Mets are like the Pima Indians in The Ballad of Ira Hayes, except the problem is the Wilpons lack of money, not water.

I doubt any decent manager would want the job considering the financial constraints, and replacing Collins with a no name would be an unacceptable admission of current conditions.

DanBOctober 2, 2013 at 8:13 am

If I had to sum up my frustration it is that the Mets know Collins is mediocre at best yet they are okay with it. There is no hunger in team leadership to be winners. I feel like the Mets would be okay, even excited, with a 500 team.

KPCOctober 2, 2013 at 9:51 am

What is not being said by the Mets is simple: If Harvey doesn’t get hurt, Collins is gone. So much of the Mets future is/was riding on Harvey’s arm, that right now they are assuming he won’t be there for 2014, and probably won’t be himself for 2015 either way. So by giving Collins 2 years, they are saying “We don’t have Harvey any more, so 2014 & 2015 will be just like 2012 & 2013.” Don’t you think that if Harvey is guaranteed to start & be himself next year, they would be going after someone like Girardi right now?

crozierOctober 2, 2013 at 12:02 pm

That’s a big assumption about Harvey’s role as The Franchise. He’s important, sure, but without offense, the Mets played 13-12 ball in his starts. With a strong offense, a rotation of Niese/Gee/Wheeler/Syndergaard/Mejia/Montero could be competitive.

Alderson thinks Collins is a decent custodian, which is clearly how he sees the role. Alderson has stood behind Collins every step of the way, so the contract extension isn’t surprising.

argonbunniesOctober 2, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Here’s my take:

1) Motivation
From hearing them talk, and from hearing a couple of players talk about them, it seems to me like Terry Collins and Dan Warthen provide exactly the kind of atmosphere that players like, that gets them in a good mood to go out and try their hardest. Collins and Warthen both seem fun, honest, and consistent.

If that’s part of a winning formula, then you could argue that the Mets would have been far worse with some standoffish curmudgeon at the helm.

2) Strategy
As a strategist, Terry drives me nuts sometimes, but not more frequently than most managers. There are maybe two or three managers in all of baseball who are clearly better, four or five who are clearly worse, and a ton in Collins’ general vicinity.

Yeah, this is a missed opportunity to gain an edge, but I doubt it’s a huge deal. Most stats guys estimate that good vs bad lineup construction (for example) adds up to only a game or two in the standings.

3) Player improvement
Joe’s got a good point about the progress of young players under Collins’ watch. This is easily the single most important feature of his tenure. We weren’t going to win, but we could have grown some assets and put the organization in a much better position going forward. That was (or should have been) goal #1.

Except for Harvey, it didn’t happen.

I like pretty much everything Hudgens says, but perhaps he lacks the specific drills and other instruction methods to make it actionable. It’s tempting to look at the Mets hitters as disappointments and call for a new hitting coach.

Then again, look at the scouting reports, and outside the Mets organization, no one considered Tejada, Duda, or Nieuwenhuis legitimate prospects as everyday players. So perhaps it’s only hype — whether from stupid optimism or calculated misdirection — that made any of us see any potential in these players. Maybe Hudgens has done an amazing job getting AAA guys to hold their own in the bigs. I don’t know!

4) Usage and injury
Warthen tracks pitches and innings for relievers over various time spans, and has that data available for Terry, but there’s no push to make that the deciding factor when it comes to who Collins brings in when.

If it’s the manager’s job to give his pitchers the best chance to stay healthy, then Collins has failed that job terribly.

I don’t think that should be his job, though. Remember the Joba Rules? Cashman rightly new he couldn’t trust Torre, so he handed down some rules. This was wise, despite the mocking int eh media, because Torre, list most managers, would get caught up in the game, and bring in whatever guy he thought would best get the next out, regardless of anything else.

We could ask Collins to be better than Torre, but really, what draws people to managing? It’s usually the desire to compete, and do your best, and win. The ranks of qualified applicants are not filled with guys who are willing to lose today for the greater good of the organization.

My inclination is to blame injuries on an organizational failure of process — the ultra-competitive Wright being left to make the call on whether he should play through a pulled hamstring being the prime example — and fault Alderson, not any coach.

Adding it up
1) Above average, unless unhappy players would play better.
2) About average, unless there’s tons of managerial talent I’ve missed.
3) Below average, unless the talent really is that bad.
4) Shouldn’t be up to Collins n the first place.

Taken together, I think we have a fairly average manager, one who we should only be eager to replace if we can find some who’s specifically good at helping young players improve (and can bring a hitting coach with him who does the same).